Top Banner

of 30

Power to Hurt

Apr 06, 2018

Download

Documents

webbedfeet
Welcome message from author
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
  • 8/3/2019 Power to Hurt

    1/30

    POWERTO HURT

    THEROLEOF

    WEALTHYPRIVATEFOUNDATIONSINUNDERMININGCONGRESSIONALPOLICY

    ONTHENATIONALFORESTS

    SUPPLEMENTTOTHEBOOKUNDUEINFLUENCE

    A REPORTBYTHE CENTERFORTHE DEFENSEOF

    FREE ENTERPRISE

  • 8/3/2019 Power to Hurt

    2/30Power to Hurt 2

    Power to Hurt: Introduction

    In October of 1999, the Center for the Defense of Free Enterprise placed into pre-releaseRon Arnolds book-length study, Undue Influence: Wealthy Foundations, Grant-Driven Environmental Groups, and Zealous Bureaucrats That Control Your Future.

    The books central point was: big foundations give billions in grants to elitist organizationsthat have privileged access to government agencies with an environmental agenda thatrequires the elimination of all resource extraction industries, first from federal lands, then fromother government and private lands. Their combined power to hurt is overwhelming.

    Undue Influence provided documentation. The three-cornered power center of founda-tions, environmental groups and government employees works in concert to:

    q cut off the flow of natural resources from Americas federal lands, ending the supplyof water, timber, minerals, food and fiber that citizens use every day.

    q tighten their regulatory grip on private property so owners cant use what they ownand cant get compensation for what they lose.

    q increase the size of government by taking more and more private land for nature

    preserves, greenways, heritage sites, and growth management areaseven thoughgovernment already owns nearly half the nation .q widen the rural-urban prosperity gap. While cities enjoy a booming economy, rural

    communities suffer severe economic pain brought on by the iron triangle through bans onlogging, mining, ranching, farming, and all forms of natural resource production.

    q sway the media that Americans rely on, influencing readers and viewers to believewhat the iron triangle wants them to believe.

    q dismantle industrial civilization piece by piece.

    However, as Undue Influence went into major release in February 2000, the few monthssince it emerged from the printer had seen one outrage after another emerge from the irontriangle of foundations, environmental groups and government officials.

    Wealthy foundations created projects to foreclose all development of 60 million acres of

    federal land, funded environmental groups to do their political advocacy, and manipulated theWhite House with insider influence to administratively declare the coveted lands beyond anyhuman habitation, tourist facilities, vehicular access or resource development.

    Wealthy foundations created an electioneering machine in the form of a new group thatwill enhance the mailing lists of major environmental groups by adding voter records,legislative districts, demographic information, party preferences and other election-orienteddata designed to forward a strictly political agenda.

    New national monuments were created by presidential proclamation in areas longadvocated for wilderness status by foundation-funded environmental groups with insideraccess to the Secretary of the Interior, who recommended to the President a lengthy list ofareas for administrative designation as national monuments, regardless of the communitiesand natural resource industries that would be damaged.

    All this was done in a way that avoided Congressional approval, foreclosed public debate,

    and excluded those hurt by the administrative actions, a most undemocratic method.Therefore, the Center for the Defense of Free Enterprise compiled the information in this

    White Paper as a report to Congress that will supplement and confirm the findings in the bookUndue Influence.

    Updates may be tracked on the Web at http://www.undueinfluence.com.

    This report was produced by the Center for the Defense of Free Enterprise in the publicinterest. Permission to reproduce portions of this report is granted.

  • 8/3/2019 Power to Hurt

    3/303 Power to Hurt

    Power to Hurt: Contents

    Introduction 2

    The Hidden Power

    Foundations are manipulating public policy 4Example: The Heritage Forest Campaign 5Example: The Partnership Project 6Example: The Northern Forest Alliance 7Example: The Southwest Forest Alliance 8Lumber reductions and closed mills 9

    Documentation

    Heritage Forest Campaign 11Partnership Project 11Northern Forest Alliance 13Pew Grant Application - Southwest Forest Alliance 15

    Targets of Hurt: Comments from around the nation

    Maine 23New Hampshire 23Massachusetts 23Rhode Island 23Tennessee 24Florida 24Ohio 24Arkansas 25Colorado 25

    New Mexico 25Arizona 26Utah 26Montana 28California 28

  • 8/3/2019 Power to Hurt

    4/30Power to Hurt 4

    WEALTHYFOUNDATIONSAREMANIPULATINGPUBLICPOLICY

    THE HIDDEN POWER

    POINT: TAX-EXEMPTANDSUPPOSEDLYCHARITABLEFOUNDATIONSAREGIVINGMONEYANDMARCHINGORDERSTOMAJORENVIRONMENTALGROUPSTHATHAVESPECIALACCESSTOGOVERNMENTOFFICIALSINORDER

    TOSHAPENATIONALPOLICYAGAINSTRESOURCEINDUSTRIESANDPRIVATEPROPERTY.

    POINT: THE $4.7 BILLION PEW CHARITABLE TRUSTSENVIRONMENTPROGRAMOFFICER TOM WATHENHELPEDPREPAREAREPORTCONTAININGTHELAN-GUAGE, FORCONSIDERABLESUMSOFMONEY, PUBLICOPINIONCANBEMOLDED,CONSTITUENTSMOBILIZED, ISSUESRESEARCHED, ANDPUBLICOFFICIALSBUTTON-

    HOLED, ALLINASYMPHONICARRANGEMENT.PEWS ENVIRONMENT DIRECTOR

    JOSHUA REICHERTWASINVOLVEDINFUNDING ENVIRONMENTAL STRATEGIES,NOWCALLEDTHE NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL TRUST, AMEDIAGROUPRUNBY REICHERTSFORMER PEWASSISTANT, TOM WATHEN.AMERICANSHAVENOIDEAHOWMUCHTHEIRMINDSHAVEBEENREARRANGEDBYTHISFOUNDATION-MADEPROJECT.

    POINT

    : FOUNDATIONS

    CREATE

    LARGE

    -SCALE

    INITIATIVES

    USING

    A

    SINGLE

    GROUPASA FISCALAGENT TOFUNNELTH EMONEYTONUMEROUSGROUPS, WHICHDISGUISESTHESOURCEOFTH EINITIATIVEANDGIVESTHEAPPEARANCEOFPOPULARSUPPORT.

    POINT: CONCENTRATIONSOFWEALTHANDPOWERTHATRESTRAINECO-NOMICACTIVITYOREXERCISEUNDUEINFLUENCEOVERPUBLICPOLICYHAVELONGBEENSUBJECTTOGOVERNMENTREGULATION. YETTHEREISNOSPECIFICREGULATIONOFTHETRIANGLEOFPRIVATEFOUNDATIONS,GRANT-DRIVENENVIRONMENTALGROUPSANDACTIVISTFEDERALEMPLOY-EESWHICHACTSINCONCERTTODESTROYRURALGOODS-PRODUCINGECONOMIESANDUNDULYINFLUENCEPUBLICPOLICY. THEYWERENOTELECTED. THEYARENOTACCOUNTABLE.

    SEE MARK DOWIE MISATTRIBUTION ON PAGE 29

  • 8/3/2019 Power to Hurt

    5/305 Power to Hurt

    EXAMPLE: THE HERITAGE FOREST CAMPAIGN

    THE HIDDEN POWER

    POINT: THE PEW CHARITABLE TRUSTSCREATEDTH E HERITAGEFOREST CAMPAIGN TOPUSHFORDECLARING ROADLESS STUDYAREASAS WILDERNESS, TOSHUTOUTALLVEHICULARTOURISM,

    HUMANCOMMUNITIESANDRESOURCEDEVELOPMENT.POINT: SINCE SEPTEMBER, 1998, PEWHASGIVENTHE NATIONAL

    AUDUBON SOCIETY $3,565,000 INTAX-FREEGRANTSTOSERVEASFISCALAGENTOFTHE CAMPAIGN, FUNNELINGMONEYTO 12 OTHERENVIRONMENTALGROUPSUNDERITSSUPERVISION.

    POINT: THE 12 SUPERVISEDGROUPSARE: 1) NATURAL RESOURCES

    DEFENSE COUNCIL, 2) EARTHJUSTICE LEGAL DEFENSE FUND,3) THE WILDERNESS SOCIETY, 4) OREGON NATURAL RESOURCESCOUNCIL, 5) AMERICAN LANDS ALLIANCE, 6) US PUBLIC INTERESTRESEARCH GROUP, 7) NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL TRUST,8) ALASKA RAINFOREST CAMPAIGN, 9) SOUTHWEST FORESTALLIANCE, 10) SOUTHERN APPALACHIAN FOREST COALITION,11) SIERRA NEVADA FOREST PROTECTION CAMPAIGNAND12) FORESTWATER ALLIANCE.

    POINT: THE NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL TRUSTRECEIVEDMORETHAN $12.2 MILLIONIN PEWGRANTSFROM 1996-1999. SOUTH-WEST FOREST ALLIANCEWASCREATEDBY $750,000 IN PEWGRANTSTOTHE NATIONAL AUDUBON SOCIETY. PEWALSOGAVE$1.5 MILLIONINGRANTSFORTHE ROADLESS INITIATIVEDIRECTLYTOOTHERMEMBERSOFTHE HERITAGE FOREST CAMPAIGN.

    POINT: AUDUBONUSEDTHEENTROFTHEIRPOLICYDIRECTOR,FORMER CLINTONADMINISTRATION BUREAUOF RECLAMATIONHEAD DAN BEARD, TO PLACEAPRO-WILDERNESSPUBLICOPINIONPOLLWITHTH E WHITE HOUSECHIEFOFSTAFFTO PERSUADEPRESIDENT CLINTONTODECLARE 60 MILLIONACRESOFFEDERALLANDPERMANENTLY ROADLESS, EFFECTIVELY WILDERNESS.

  • 8/3/2019 Power to Hurt

    6/30Power to Hurt 6

    EXAMPLE: THE PARTNERSHIP PROJECT

    THE HIDDEN POWER

    POINT: THE TURNER FOUNDATIONAPPROACHEDACLUSTEROFENVIRONMENTALGROUPSEARLYIN 1999 TO PROPOSETHATTHEYJOINFORCESINAMEMBERSHIPLISTENHANCEMENTPROJECTTO

    STRENGTHENTHEIRCOLLECTIVEABILITYTOINFLUENCEPUBLICPOLICY. THE TURNER FOUNDATIONAPPROVEDA $5 MILLIONGRANTIN JULY, 1999 TOLAUNCHTHISINITIATIVE.

    POINT: A NEWGROUPWASFORMEDFORTHEPURPOSE, CALLEDTHEPARTNERSHIP PROJECT. ITDOESNOTHAVEAMEMBERSHIPANDDOESNOTMARKETITSELFASASEPARATEENTITY. ITSPRIMARYPURPOSEISTOENHANCETHEMEMBERSHIPLISTSOFPARTICIPATINGENVIRONMENTALGROUPSWITHINFORMATION SUCHASLEGISLA-TIVEDISTRICTS, PHONENUMBERS, E-MAILADDRESSES, VOTINGHISTORY, ANDDEMOGRAPHICPROFILES. (THESEENHANCEMENTSWOULDBEPROHIBITIVELYEXPENSIVEWEREEACHORGANIZATIONTOADDTHEMINDEPENDENTLY.)

    POINT: ELEVENGROUPSPARTICIPATE: NATIONAL AUDUBON SOCIETY;

    NATIONAL WILDLIFE FEDERATION; NATIONAL PARKSAND CONSER-VATION ASSOCIATION; NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL;ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENSE FUND; DEFENDERSOF WILDLIFE; THEWILDERNESS SOCIETY; AMERICAN RIVERS; EARTHJUSTICE LEGALDEFENSE FUND; UNIONOF CONCERNED SCIENTISTS; ANDTHEISAAC WALTON LEAGUE.

    POINT: PARTICIPANTSAGREETOJOININ 2 OF 3 TO 5 COLLABORATIVECAMPAIGNSPERYEAR. THREECAMPAIGNSHAVEBEGUN, INCLUDINGONEON THE CLINTON ADMINISTRATIONS LANDS LEGACYINITIATIVE AFFECTING FOREST SERVICELANDS. THISCOMBINEFUNCTIONSASA SUPERLOBBYWITH NO CLEARREPORTINGREQUIREMENTSORPUBLICDISCLOSURE.

  • 8/3/2019 Power to Hurt

    7/307 Power to Hurt

    EXAMPLE: THE NORTHERN FOREST ALLIANCE

    THE HIDDEN POWER

    POINT: IN 1990, CHUCK CLUSENOF LAURANCE ROCKEFELLERSFOUNDATION, THE AMERICAN CONSERVATION ASSOCIATION ,BEGAN WORKINGWITH MAJORENVIRONMENTALGROUPSTHAT

    CREATED TH E NORTHERN FOREST ALLIANCETO NATIONALIZE26 MILLION ACRESOFPRIVATELANDIN 4 STATESINTO FED -ERAL OWNERSHIP FO R NATURE PRESERVES. THE APPALACHIANMOUNTAIN CLUBWASTH EFISCALAGENT.

    POINT: 32 GROUPSAREPARTOFTHE NORTHERN FOREST ALLIANCE:1) THE ADIRONDACK COUNCIL; 2) APPALACHIAN MOUNTAIN CLUB; 3) APPALACHIAN TRAIL CONFERENCE; 4)ASSOCIATION FORTHE PROTECTIONOFTH E ADIRONDACKS; 5) CONSERVATION LAW FOUNDATION ; 6) DEFENDERSOF WILDLIFE; 7) GARDEN CLUBOF AMERICA; 8) GOO D WOO D ALLIANCE; 9) GREEN MOUNTAIN CLUB; 10)

    GREEN MOUNTAIN FOREST WATCH; 11) MAINE AUDUBON SOCIETY; 12) NATIONAL AUDUBON SOCIETY; 13)NATIONAL WILDLIFE FEDERATION; 14) NATURAL RESOURCES COUNCILOF MAINE; 15) NATURAL RESOURCESDEFENSE COUNCIL; 16) NEW ENGLAND FORESTRY FOUNDATION; 17) NEW HAMPSHIRE RIVERS COUNCIL; 18)NEW HAMPSHIRE WILDLIFE FEDERATION; 19) NEW YORK LEAGUEOF CONSERVATION VOTERS; 20) NEW YORKRIVERS UNITED; 21) RESIDENTS COMMITTEETO PROTECTTHE ADIRONDACKS; 22) SIERRA CLUB; 23) SIERRASTUDENT COALITION; 24) STUDENT ENVIRONMENTAL ACTION COALITION; 25) TROUT UNLIMITEDBASILWOODS JR. CHAPTER; 26) TRUSTFOR PUBLIC LAND; 27) VERMONT ALLIANCEOF CONSERVATION VOTERS; 28)VERMONT AUDUBON COUNCIL; 29) VERMONT LAND TRUST; 30) VERMONT NATURAL RESOURCES COUNCIL; 31)THE WILDERNESS SOCIETY; 32) WORLD WILDLIFE FUND.

    POINT: THE AMERICAN CONSERVATION ASSOCIATIONHASGIVEN

    $50,000 FORTHE ALLIANCE; JESSIE B. COX CHARITABLE TRUST$525,000; SURDNA FOUNDATION $200,000; JOHN MERCK FUND$325,000; GERALDINE ROCKEFELLER DODGE FOUNFDATION$65,000; PEW CHARITABLE TRUSTS $750,000; MORIAH FUND$135,000; RICHARD KING MELLON FOUNDATION $100,000;WEEDEN FOUNDATION $20,000. THESOLEPURPOSEOFTHISTAX-EXEMPTMONEYWASTONATIONALIZEPRIVATEPROPERTY.

    POINT: THE ALLIANCESTRATEGYOF TAKEITALLBACK BYFEDERAL DES-IGNATIONCAUSEDAHUGEBACKLASHANDFAILED. NOWCONSERVATIONEASEMENTSARETHEIRMAINFOCUS, PERMANENTLYHAMPERINGUSEOFPRIVATEPROPERTY. ONLY GOVERNMENTORITSLANDTRUSTSURROGATESWILLBUYSUCHLAND, ULTIMATELYPRODUCINGTHESAMERESULT:NATIONALIZATIONOFRURALPRIVATELANDS.

  • 8/3/2019 Power to Hurt

    8/30Power to Hurt 8

    EXAMPLE: THE SOUTHWEST FOREST ALLIANCE

    THE HIDDEN POWER

    POINT: IN 1994, THE NEW MEXICO STATEDIRECTOROFTHENATIONAL AUDUBON SOCIETYSUBMITTEDAGRANTPROPOSALTOTHE PEW CHARITABLE TRUSTS, RECEIVING $750,000 TOCREATE

    APOWERFULCOALITIONOFNEARLY 50 GROUPSTHATCOULDELIMINATERESOURCEEXTRACTION INDUSTRIESFROMFEDERALLANDSINTH E SOUTHWEST. AUDUBONWASTH EFISCALAGENT.

    POINT: THE 50-GROUPCOALITION, ORIGINALLYCALLEDTHE DESERTFORESTS CAMPAIGN ANDLATERRENAMED SOUTHWEST FORESTALLIANCE, WASDELIBERATELYDESIGNEDTOTAKEADVANTAGEOFTHEPOVERTYANDSPARSEPOPULATIONOFRURALAREASSOURBANVALUESCOULDBEIMPOSEDONSURROUNDINGFEDERALLANDS.

    POINT: THEGRANTPROPOSALSTATED: NINETYPERCENTOF SOUTH-WESTFORESTSAREMANAGEDBYTHE U.S. PARKOR FOREST SERVICETHERESTISMANAGEDBYTHREE NATIVE AMERICAN NATIONS.WITHSOFEWAGENCIESINVOLVED, ALLTHEFEDERALENVIRON-MENTALMANDATES, STRATEGIZINGANDCOORDINATIONWILLBEMADEEASIER.

    POINT: THEGRANTPROPOSALSTATED: THETIMBERINDUSTRYISAMINORECONOMICFORCEINTHE SOUTHWEST. ITSCONTINUEDANDINEVITABLEDECLINEWILLNOTCAUSETHEKINDOFUPHEAVALEVI-DENTINTHE NORTHWEST.

    POINT: ELEVENGROUPS, NOT 50, WERETHEORIGINALORGANIZERS.MARICOPA AUDUBON, LEDBY CHARLES BABBITT, BROTHEROFINTERIOR SECRETARY BRUCE BABBITT, WASONEOFTHEORIGINALORGANIZERS. THEADDITIONALGROUPSOFTHECOALITIONWEREADDEDLATERBYPAIDRECRUITERS. THEIRIMPACTONLOCALFORESTCOMMUNITIESHASBEENDEVASTATING (SEEPAGE 9).

  • 8/3/2019 Power to Hurt

    9/309 Power to Hurt

    THE HIDDEN POWER

    LUMBER PRODUCTION BY SOUTHWEST STATESMillion Board Feet

    STATE 1990 1992 1994

    ARIZONA 388 274 191

    NEW MEXICO 208 167 176

    COLORADO 132 123 113

    UTAH 69 54 37

    TOAL 797 618 517

    YEAR

    CLOSED

    COMPANY CITY

    1998 PRECISION PINE &

    TIMBER INC.

    WINSLOW

    1998 STONE EAGER

    1996 PRECISION PINE &TIMBER INC.

    EAGER

    1996 PRECISION PINE &

    TIMBER INC.

    HEBER

    1995 KAIBAB

    INDUSTRIES

    FREDONIA

    1995 PRECISION PINE &

    TIMBER INC.

    PAYSON

    1994 PRECISION PINE &

    TIMBER INC.

    WILLIAMS

    1993 STONE FOREST

    INDUSTRIES

    FLAGSTAFF

    1995 MEDITE OF NEW

    MEXICO

    LAS VEGAS

    1995 MARSHALL

    LUMBER CO.

    GRANTS

    1994 NAVAJO FOREST

    PRODUCTS

    INDUSTRIES

    NAVAJO

    1993 BATES LUMBER

    COMPANY INC.

    ALBUQUERQUE

    1993 STONE FOREST RESERVE

    CLOSED ARIZONA AND NEW MEXICO MILLS, 1992-1998

    Source: Paul F. Ehinger and Associates, Eugene, Oregon

  • 8/3/2019 Power to Hurt

    10/30Power to Hurt 10

    SOURCES

    DOCUMENTION

    HERITAGE FOREST CAMPAIGN:

    The Minutes of the National Audubon Society Board Meeting, held at Brewster Mas-

    sachusetts on September 17-18, 1999, contain the following passage:

    Conservation Update from Dan Beard:

    Heritage Forest Campaign:

    There are 60 million acres of 1000 acre-plus plots in our National Forests that are still roadless. There is nohope of congressional action to preserve them as wilderness. Administrative protection is possible. We haveraised the issues visibility in the White House, but its not enough. So we did a poll, using the presidentspollster. He sent results to White House chief of staff. The poll shows that Americans, strongly, care aboutwilderness to the extent of favoring it over jobs. Even Republican men in intermountain states support it atthe 50% level. The administration has said they will take some kind of action. We hope for an announcementfrom the president of some kind of administrative protection. We probably wont get all 60 million acres, but

    if we did it would represent the biggest chunk of land protection since the Alaska Lands Act.The Pew Trust is pleased with the campaign so far. 2nd year funding will take it to January 2001: $2.2 millionfor about 12 organizations under our supervision. Outside Magazine this month has a good cover article. Ourvisibility and credibility among fellow forest protection organizations has been raised. (comment from JohnFlicker - this grant came to us because of Dan Beards reputation and good name.)

    We had an email and letter writing campaign: there were about 200,000 responses; about 170K came frombanners placed on services such as Juno; 25K came direct from environmental groups; NAS sent in 3K.

    On this issue there is a lot of looking for leadership: I like it but let someone else go first. In Congressreaction we got a letter of support signed by 170 members; there is some senate support [40?]. The leader-ship knows roadless vote would now win, so they wont bring it to a vote.

    PARTNERSHIP PROJECT:

    The Minutes of the National Audubon Society Board Meeting, held at Brewster Mas-

    sachusetts on September 17-18, 1999, contain the following passage:

    Partnership Project:

    The Partnership Project is a coalition effort of 11 national conservation organizations. The Project wasfounded with a grant from the Turner Foundation to facilitate the compilation of national conservation organizationsmembership lists, enhance those lists with publicly available demographic information, and use them in 3-5 collabora-tive campaigns per year. Other participating organizations include: National Wildlife Federation; National Parks and

    Conservation Association; Natural Resources Defense Council; Environmental Defense Fund; Defenders of Wild-life; The Wilderness Society; American Rivers; Earthjustice Legal Defense Fund; Union of Concerned Scientists;and the Isaac Walton League. World Wildlife Fund is also expected to join this effort.

    The Partnership Project has launched three campaigns, including ones on the Clinton Administrations LandsLegacy initiative, the anti-environmental riders attached to appropriations bills, and global warming. Although eachcampaign is developed according to the particular issue and congressional targets, the communication methodsgenerally involve print and radio advertisements in Washington, D.C. and congressional targets home districts, phonebanking and constituent patch-throughs to congressional offices, and direct mail with postcards to return to theadministration. Response rates have been high. So far, President Clinton has received nearly 58,000 postcards urginghim to veto legislation that contains anti-environmental riders. In addition, the patch-through phone calls have had a40 percent response rate, translating into thousands of calls from our members to their elected officials.

  • 8/3/2019 Power to Hurt

    11/3011 Power to Hurt

    DOCUMENTATION

    PARTNERSHIP PROJECT (continued):

    Advantages of List Enhancement to Audubon

    List enhancement is the process of taking a membership list, matching it against information-rich sources such as state voter

    files and motor vehicle registration files, and enhancing the list with new data. These data could include: address and phone

    number updates; e-mail addresses; federal and state legislative districts; political party affiliation; demographic information

    such as age and gender; and, in the case of a joint list enhancement project with other organizations, how many members arecommon to multiple organizations.

    Why Participate in a List Enhancement Project?

    1. Increased ability to communicate with supporters Address and phone number updates, and in particular the addition

    of e-mail addresses to our membership files, will ensure that we have available a range of ways to communicate with

    our members and supporters.

    2. Better targeting for advocacy and fundraising Members who vote consistently in primary and general elections tend

    to be more motivated and educated on issues, and hence are often the best targets when soliciting donors or recruiting

    volunteers.

    3. Greater understanding of your membership Through list enhancement, an organization can gain important informa-

    tion about its membership, such as average age, geographic distribution, gender ratio, and in a joint list enhancement

    project, how many of its members belong to other organizations.

    How is an Enhanced List Used?

    Advocacy:

    Identify constituents of key legislators for grassroots lobbying purposes

    Target action alerts based on geography and voting frequency

    Recruit grassroots leaders based on their congressional district and voting frequency

    Turn out members in a particular county to a town meeting or legislative hearing

    Inform lawmakers of exactly how many of the organizations members are voting constituents

    Fundraising:

    Focus fundraising efforts on high-frequency voters

    Develop prospecting lists based on group demographics

    Membership:

    Conduct membership appeals based on gender or age

    To: Public Policy Committee

    From: Dan Beard and Valerie Cook

    Date: September 2, 1999

    Re: Green Group List Project

    This spring, the Turner Foundation approached the Green Group to propose that national conservation organizations join

    forces in a list project to strengthen our collective ability to advocate for environmental protection. The Turner Foundation

    approved a $5 million grant in July to launch this initiative.

    Project Specifics

    A new nonprofit organization called the Partnership Project has been formed to implement the grant. A two-person staff will

    coordinate the list project and future fundraising efforts, but the Partnership Project will differ from a traditional organization in

    that it will not have a membership, nor will it attempt to market itself as a separate entity. Instead, the Partnership Project will

    work to accomplish the following:

    1. Create momentum around overarching issues of national importance (campaigns); and

    2. Enhance the membership lists of conservation organizations with information such as legislative districts, phone

    numbers, e-mail addresses, voting history, and demographic profiles. (These enhancements would be prohibitively

    expensive were each organization to add them independently.)

  • 8/3/2019 Power to Hurt

    12/30Power to Hurt 12

    DOCUMENTATION

    PARTNERSHIP PROJECT (continued):

    Organizational Structure

    A board of up to 20 directors will govern the Partnership Project, and a subset of these directors will form an executive

    committee. Nomination to the board of directors and executive committee will be based primarily on the size of the membership

    list an organization lends to the project. Representatives from the six organizations contributing the largest lists will form the

    initial executive committee, which will then appoint up to four other organizations to the committee.

    Participating organizations agree to use their enhanced lists in at least two collaborative campaigns per year, although

    an organization can elect not to participate in any campaign. Should an organization bow out of two or more campaigns in a year,

    it must reimburse the Partnership Project for the cost of the enhancements to its list during the previous 24 months, although the

    executive committee may vote to waive this penalty. An organization also can leave the Partnership Project by submitting written

    notice 30 days in advance.

    The following protocols have been established to protect the membership lists:

    1. Triplex Systems Corporation, which warehouses lists for several participating organizations, will be the only entity with

    access to all of the organizations lists. For example, only National Audubon and Triplex will have access to Audubons

    list, and the only information we will learn from other organizations lists will be the number of members that we have in

    common.

    2. No fundraising or membership development will be done by the Partnership Project from the lists. The lists will be used

    exclusively for advocacy purposes.

    Campaign Development

    The board of directors will determine the topics and strategies for the campaigns. Selection of the campaigns will be by

    three-quarters of the executive committee and a simple majority of the board of directors. At least three collaborative campaigns

    will be launched each calendar year, and ad-hoc working groups will develop the campaign strategies.

    The campaigns may take a number of different forms. Communications could be largely electronic, or regular mailings or

    phone banks could predominate. Furthermore, one communication could be sent out on stationary listing all of the participating

    groups, while another communication may be sent out on individual groups letterhead to their subsets of members. The

    effectiveness of different techniques will inform future campaign strategies.

    Campaign topics under consideration include land conservation, anti-environmental legislative riders, global warming,

    and voter participation. Two campaigns will be launched this fall.

    What Does This Mean for Audubon?

    1. Audubon would receive enhancements to our membership and donor lists, including address and phone numberupdates, e-mail addresses, voting frequency, and demographic information. This information could be used for our own

    advocacy, fundraising, and membership development efforts.

    2. We already are involved in many of the issues likely to become Partnership Project campaigns. Collaborating with the

    Partnership Project on these issues will allow us to activate our membership more frequently. In addition, the Partner-

    ship Projects efforts may have more impact than our individual efforts could.

    Next Steps

    We have tentatively decided to participate in this effort. However, because this project could be controversial with

    some members, we are seeking support from the board in the form of a resolution. A draft resolution is attached for your review.

    To date, we have contributed a portion of our membership and donor lists to the initial list merge/purge for the project,

    from which a combined list will emerge. The size of Audubons listapproximately 441,000 members and donorshas earned

    Audubon a seat on both the board of directors and the executive committee. Audubon and Triplex signed a confidentiality

    agreement for the initial list merge/purge. An additional confidentiality agreement would be signed for any future list usage that

    Audubon participates in.

    Partnership ProjectThe Partnership Project is a coalition effort of 11 national conservation organizations. The Project was founded with a

    grant from the Turner Foundation to facilitate the compilation of national conservation organizations membership lists, enhance

    those lists with publicly available demographic information, and use them in 3-5 collaborative campaigns per year. Other partici-

    pating organizations include: National Wildlife Federation; National Parks and Conservation Association; Natural Resources

    Defense Council; Environmental Defense Fund; Defenders of Wildlife; The Wilderness Society; American Rivers;

  • 8/3/2019 Power to Hurt

    13/3013 Power to Hurt

    DOCUMENTATION

    PARTNERSHIP PROJECT (continued):Earthjustice Legal Defense Fund; Union of Concerned Scientists; and the Isaac Walton League. World Wildlife Fund is also

    expected to join this effort.

    The Partnership Project has launched three campaigns, including ones on the Clinton Administrations Lands Legacy

    initiative, the anti-environmental riders attached to appropriations bills, and global warming. Although each campaign is

    developed according to the particular issue and congressional targets, the communication methods generally involve print and

    radio advertisements in Washington, D.C. and congressional targets home districts, phone banking and constituent patch-throughs to congressional offices, and direct mail with postcards to return to the administration. Response rates have been

    high. So far, President Clinton has received nearly 58,000 postcards urging him to veto legislation that contains anti-environ-

    mental riders. In addition, the patch-through phone calls have had a 40 percent response rate, translating into thousands of

    calls from our members to their elected officials.

    Northern Forest Alliance Funders: from Foundation Center database.1990 Jessie B. Cox Charitable Trust gave $60,000 To develop site-specific strategy for long-term protection of

    New Englands northern forests.

    1991 American Conservation Association, Inc. gave $35,000 For protection of northern forest lands of Maine,

    New Hampshire, Vermont and New York.

    Jessie B. Cox Charitable Trust gave $50,000 For second-year support of Northern Forest Lands Project,effort to develop site-specific strategy for long-term protection of New Englands northern forests.

    1992 Surdna Foundation, Inc. gave $100,000 For continued support of Northern Forest Alliance, collaboration

    of leading New England and national conservation organizations to preserve northern forest lands.

    American Conservation Association, Inc. gave $15,000 For protection of northern forest lands of Maine,

    New Hampshire, Vermont and New York.

    Jessie B. Cox Charitable Trust gave $40,000 For final grant for Northern Forest Lands Project, effort to

    develop site specific strategy for long-term protection of New Englands northern forests.

    The John Merck Fund gave $65,000 For Grassroots Action Project which assists environmental organiza-

    tions in northern New England in developing more effective alliances with local communities and with interest

    groups outside traditional environmental movement.

    1993 Geraldine Rockefeller Dodge Foundation, Inc. gave $25,000 To help coordinate and provide direction fornewly founded Northern Forest Alliance, coalition of conservation organizations seeking to create sustainable

    management plan for Northern Forest.

    Richard King Mellon Foundation gave $50,000 To create system of protecting wildlands, promoting

    sustainable forests and supporting local economies while insuring ecological sustainability.

    The John Merck Fund gave $135,000 For continued support of Grassroots Action Project, which helps

    environmental organizations in northern New England develop more effective alliances with local constituen-

    cies.

    1994 The Pew Charitable Trusts gave $350,000 For matching grant for Campaign for the Northern Forests to

    establish forest reserves in northern New England and New York.

    Compton Foundation, Inc. gave $25,000 for unspecified support.

    Moriah Fund gave $70,000 For data gathering and analyses of biodiversity and land use in U.S. Northern

    Forests and for Northern Forest Alliance to protect natural resources and strengthen community economies.The John Merck Fund gave $50,000 For continued support of Grassroots Action Project, which helps

    environmental organizations in northern New England develop more effective alliances with other organiza-

    tions.

    1994 Surdna Foundation, Inc.gave $100,000 For coordination of campaign by Northern Forest Alliance to preserve

    Northern Forest Lands.

    Jessie B. Cox Charitable Trust gave $100,000 For central office operations and for outreach program. Grant

    made through Appalachian Mountain Club.

  • 8/3/2019 Power to Hurt

    14/30Power to Hurt 14

    DOCUMENTATION

    Northern Forest Alliance Funders: from Foundation Center database.

    1995 The John Merck Fund gave $25,000 To evaluate involvement with communities in Upper Androscoggin

    River area of Maine and New Hampshire to develop strategies for stabilizing local economy and protecting high-

    quality forest and water resources.

    The John Merck FundThe John Merck FundThe John Merck FundThe John Merck FundThe John Merck Fund gave $50,000 Toward launching Androscoggin Valley Project, which is aimedat increasing community involvement in local conservation projects and at assisting communities in

    developing strategies for sustainable economic diversification and job creation.

    Richard King Mellon FoundationRichard King Mellon FoundationRichard King Mellon FoundationRichard King Mellon FoundationRichard King Mellon Foundation gave $50,000 Toward Northern Forest Land Project to protect

    ecological resources.

    Geraldine Rockefeller Dodge Foundation, Inc.Geraldine Rockefeller Dodge Foundation, Inc.Geraldine Rockefeller Dodge Foundation, Inc.Geraldine Rockefeller Dodge Foundation, Inc.Geraldine Rockefeller Dodge Foundation, Inc. gave $25,000 To continue grassroots and education

    efforts to protect natural and human communities of Northern Forest.

    Jessie B. Cox Charitable TrustJessie B. Cox Charitable TrustJessie B. Cox Charitable TrustJessie B. Cox Charitable TrustJessie B. Cox Charitable Trust gave $150,000 For continued support of central office operations and

    state caucus outreach and organizing activities. Grant made through Appalachian Mountain Club.

    1996 Jessie B. Cox Charitable TrustJessie B. Cox Charitable TrustJessie B. Cox Charitable TrustJessie B. Cox Charitable TrustJessie B. Cox Charitable Trust gave $125,000 For final grant for outreach, organizing and commu-

    nications activities of Alliance state caucuses in Maine, New Hampshire and Vermont and for central

    office. Grant made through Appalachian Mountain Club.Moriah FundMoriah FundMoriah FundMoriah FundMoriah Fund gave $65,000 To promote protection and sustainable use of Northern Forests and for

    Northern Forest Alliance.

    The Pew Charitable TrustsThe Pew Charitable TrustsThe Pew Charitable TrustsThe Pew Charitable TrustsThe Pew Charitable Trusts gave $400,000 For campaign to establish public forest reserves in northern

    New England and New York.

    The John Merck FundThe John Merck FundThe John Merck FundThe John Merck FundThe John Merck Fund gave $50,000 For Androscoggin Valley Project, which seeks to increase

    community involvement in local conservation projects and to assist communities in rural area along

    Maine-New Hampshire border in developing strategies for sustainable economic diversification and job

    creation.

    Weeden FoundationWeeden FoundationWeeden FoundationWeeden FoundationWeeden Foundation gave $10,000 For continued support for protection of Northern Forest of New

    England.

    1997 Geraldine R. Dodge Foundation, Inc.Geraldine R. Dodge Foundation, Inc.Geraldine R. Dodge Foundation, Inc.Geraldine R. Dodge Foundation, Inc.Geraldine R. Dodge Foundation, Inc.

    gave $15,000 For general support for Northern Forest Alliance,coalition of conservation organizations creating sustainable management plan for 26-million-acre

    Northern Forest.

    Weeden FoundationWeeden FoundationWeeden FoundationWeeden FoundationWeeden Foundation gave $10,000 For continued support for overall coordination and implementa-

    tion of Campaign for the Northern Forest.

  • 8/3/2019 Power to Hurt

    15/3015 Power to Hurt

    PEW GRANT APPLICATION - THE STRATEGIC ATTACK PLAN

    THEFOLLOWINGISANACTUALGRANTAPPLICATIONFROMTHE NATIONAL AUDUBON SOCIETYTOTHE PEW

    CHARITABLE TRUSTSREQUESTINGHALFAMILLIONDOLLARSTOFORMAPOWERFULCOALITIONWITHTHE

    PURPOSEOFERADICATINGTHEGOODSPRODUCINGECONOMYONFEDERALLANDSINARIZONAANDNEWMEXICO

    Please attach a copy of this completed form to the front of you proposal (Fill out parts 5 and 6 only ifthey apply to your request.) The Trusts require only one copy of your proposal.

    Note: because of the volume of materials submitted to the Trusts, we cannot return anything submittedas part of a proposal.

    1. TAX NAME OF ORGANIZATIONNATIONAL AUDUBON SOCIETY

    2. ORGANIZATION ADDRESS:700 BROADWAY

    NEW YORK, NY 10003-9510

    3 . ORGANIZATION TELEPHONE (202)979-30004. NAME AND TITLE OF HEAD OF ORGANIZATION ( Include degrees)

    MR. PETER A. A. BERLE

    PRESIDENT

    5. NAME OF PROGRAM/SUBUNIT TO BE FUNDED:THE DESERT FORESTS CAMPAIGN

    6. NAME AND TITLE OF HEAD OF PROGRAM/SUBUNIT ( Include degrees)MR. DAVID HENDERSON

    NEW MEXICO STATE DIRECTOR - NATIONAL AUDUBON SOCIETY7 . GRANT REQUEST:

    (amount) $225,000/yr. (duration) TWO YEARS(purpose) To build a campaign that will lead to the permanent protection

    of the Southwest forest ecosystem through a series of legislative and ad-

    ministrative forest reserves and citizen sponsored forest management

    plans.

    For office use onlyProposal received and complete. _______________Log Number

    _____________/____________ Program/staff initials. ________________Date

    The Desert Forests CampaignThe Desert Forests CampaignThe Desert Forests CampaignThe Desert Forests CampaignThe Desert Forests CampaignProtecting the Bio-Economic Diversity of Southwest Forest Ecosystems

    A proposal before the Pew Charitable TrustsOctober, 1994

    The Desert Forests Campaign seeks a two year $225,000 per year funding commitment from Pew Charitable Trusts tosecure permanent protection for the native biological, economic and cultural diversity supported by the Southwests forestecosystems This will be accomplished through a series of legislative and administrative reserve proposals and manage-ment plans. The campaign will also influence agency-driven forest planning initiatives. Strategic administrative appealsand litigation will be used to maintain political pressure and preserve endangered forests and species. The Campaign isbeing jointly organized by every major forest advocacy group in Arizona and New Mexico. It represents the first attempt

    to systematically, pro-actively and permanently protect forests of the Southwest.

    1. BACKGROUND THREATS AND OPPORTUNITLES

    Significance of Southwestern forests

    Biological Diversity

    The Southwest is typically associated with redrock canyons and desert vistas, yet naturalists in this century and thelast have been astounded by the diversity and size of our forests. Baileys classic studies of forest mammals tookplace in New Mexico which has more ponderosa pine forest than any other state. Leopolds groundbreaking wildlife

  • 8/3/2019 Power to Hurt

    16/30Power to Hurt 16

    management essays were based on the Mogollon Plateau - the worlds largest contiguous ponderosa pine forest.Merriam developed the theory of life-zones here because Southwestern forests rise from desert to alpine tundra,encompassing more elevational/vegetative communities than any other area in North America.

    Southwest forests are lush sky islands rising up from a vast desert landscape to offer precious shade, water andfood to thousands of resident and migratory species. Because of their unique biogeography, Southwest forests areextremely diverse and sensitive to disturbance. Each of the 20 island forests of our ecological provinces has been

    isolated for over twelve thousands years, and has evolved to support and depend upon its own endemic flora andfauna. The Southwest, in fact, supports the greatest number of endemic forest species in North America. Ende-mism among plants, mammals, reptiles, amphibians and fish is particularly high. Mammal evolution is astounding.The Southwest has evolved its own grizzly bear, wolf, jaguar, coati, elk and river otter, as well as many species ofbats, squirrels, chipmunks, voles, shrews and mice. Southwestern forests are also a crucial haven for endangeredmigratory songbirds. The Tonto National Forest contains the highest density of breeding songbirds in North Americawhile Arizona supports the greatest avian diversity north of Mexico.

    Linking the Sierra Madre Occidental, the Rocky Mountains and the Great Basin Ranges, the forests of the South-west are not only a national concern, they are an international treasure. They are one of North Americas keystonebiodiversity hotspots.

    Economic/Cultural Diversity

    Native tribes of the Southwest have an ancient tradition of carefully using forest resources. Though some ruins areover 40,000 years old and sites like Sky City on the Acoma Reservation have been continuously occupied for over7,000 years, the forests of the Southwest remained in excellent ecological health up to the late 19th century.Traditionals still depend upon the dwindling high elevation forests for spiritual practices and to gather herbs andnatural dyes.

    Spanish culture has been a part of the Southwest for over 400 years. Small, historic, Spanish speaking communitieslike Vallecitos, Chimayo and Canon Plaza still dominate the mountains of northern New Mexico. Fire wood, latillacutting, and small lumber mills have long been central part of these communities, they have come to depend uponthe forests for their economic and cultural independence. Encroachment of industrial logging, especially in places,like the Vallecitos Sustained Yield Unit on the Carson National Forest threatens to destroy the economic base andindependence of these communities.

    Ecosystem Threats

    Massive overgrazing of the Southwest began in the 18th century when Padre Kino brought Spanish cattle and sheepto southern Arizona via Mexico. These non-desert adapted species quickly took to the highlands where theyproliferated and decimated native watersheds which had not evolved under intense grazing pressure. By the late1880s, cattle numbers were ten times what they are today. Many rivers had already dried up by 1884 when adrought left over 500,000 dead cattle scattered across the badly eroded landscape.

    Industrial logging entered the Southwest in the 1860s with the building of the transcontinental railroad. With theexception of the Kaibab Plateau which was too remote and the Greater Gila Ecosystem which was still largelycontrolled by the Apaches, the Southwests forests were highgraded for railroad ties and mining timber. Loggingwas focused on high grade trees between 250 and 500 years old. Such trees are nonexistent today.

    The Forest Reserve System was created in the late 1880s to limit grazing abuse and systematize timber harvest.Selective highgrading continued up to the 1960s when new mill operators demanded more timber. Use of theshelterwood system from the 1960s up to the early 1990s massively increased timber production and road con-struction. Over half of the timber ever cut in the Southwest was cut in the last 30 years.

    Historic photographs show enormous old growth ponderosa pine forests, trout streams tumbling through denseDouglas white fir forests, and snowy expanses of massive spruce. Over a hundred years of industrial forestry andovergrazing. however, have liquidated eighty-five percent of the total old growth and ninety-five percent of theponderosa pine old growth. What remains is highly fragmented. Because so many of Southwests forest species are

    PEW GRANT APPLICATION - THE STRATEGIC ATTACK PLAN

  • 8/3/2019 Power to Hurt

    17/3017 Power to Hurt

    endemics with no place to retreat, they have suffered a wave of extinction unparalleled by any other North Americanforest system.

    The Southwest grizzly bear, Merriams elk, and the Southwest river otter are extinct. The Mexican gray wolf, jaguar, thick-billed parrot, condor and Tarahumara leopard frog are extirpated. The Mount Graham red squirrel, Obscura Mountains least chipmunk, Chuska Mountains tassel-eared squirrel, Arizonawater shrew, New Mexico meadow jumping mouse, spotted bat, occult bat, Mexican spotted owl, Apache goshawk,Northern goshawk, Southwestern willow flycatcher, Goulds turkey, Jemez Mountain salamander, Chiricahua leopardfrog, and New Mexico ridge-nosed rattlesnake are just a few of the imperiled native species. All of the Southwests native trout, chubs and minnows are already listed as threatened or endangered. Eighty percent of all birds and one hundred percent of neotropical songbirds dependent upon Southwest ponderosa pineforests have suffered serious declines in the last 30 years.

    Due to a massive appeal effort and Mexican spotted owl conservation measures, logging has decreased dramatically onthe Southwests eleven National Forests in the last five years. The Forest Service is now proposing a number of largescale ecosystem management plans in order to get the timber program back on track Under the guise of restoringforest health and goshawk habitat improvement, the Forest Service is setting its sights on the very last of theSouthwests mature forest. Ecosystem management in the Southwest has come to mean abolishing Forest standardsand guidelines. and increasing salvage logging, and intensive livestock development and/or logging in roadless areas,wilderness areas, goshawk territories and even spotted owl territories. Logging on Native American lands (especially

    Navajo, Mescalero Apache and White River Apache lands) is even more intense.

    Timber appeals have been successful in the past because the Forest Service has been quite random and unsophisticated inits approach. A series of new quasi-scientific initiatives, however, will make sale-by-sale battles much more difficult. Itwill also systematically increase logging levels.

    1) All eleven National Forest Plans are being amended in 1995 to incorporate spotted owl and Northern goshawkmanagement guidelines. The amendments will prescribe increased cutting levels in ponderosa pine across theregion to improve goshawk foraging habitat.

    2) A region wide Forest Health Initiative is being developed which will mandate aggressive salvage logging ofwindthrow, mistletoe and beetle infested forests. As happened in the Northwest salvage timber sales have in-creased dramatically since the listing of the spotted owl as a threatened species.

    3) Ecosystem projects are being developed on every National Forest to restore the ponderosa pine community to a

    mythical park-like savanna which the Forest Service claims existed prior to the European invasion. This mistakenvision, more than any other, will massively increase logging throughout the Southwest, converting the vast majorityof our forests to monoculture rangelands.

    4) In response to pressure to remove cattle from riparian areas, the National Forests are proposing massive uplandwater developments which will increase upper watershed degradation.

    5 ) The Bureau of Indian Affairs has massively expanded its timber program during the last decade, so much so that its10 year timber supply is exhausted. It is now proposing to increase cutting levels in the Chuska Mountains beyondthe ten year limitation.

    6) The desecration of Mt. Graham by the University of Arizonas international observatory complex is but one assaulton Native American cultural values. A proposed coal mine in the Cibola National Forest threatens to drain a lakesacred to the Zuni People, while recreational developments continually encroach on Native American sacred sitesthroughout the region.

    7) The encroachment of internationally owned Duke City Lumber on the Vallecitos Sustained Yield Unit in northernNew Mexico is threatening Hispanic communities which have depended upon the forest for four hundred years.Because Vallecitos was supposed to be reserved for community operators, local loggers have joined forces withenvironmentalists to stop the cutting. Timber sales are still being planned and cut, however.

    Opportunities

    It is readily apparent that this new level of threats is a response to successful, if less than systematic, environmental activismThe Forest Service has adopted our language, coopted our concepts, and become more sophisticated in its management andjustification. It is now time for the environmental movement evolve as well. The next five years offers an excellent opportunityfor the environmental community to come together in a systematic pro-active campaign to attain permanent forest protectionthrough the legislation of a network of forest reserves and conservation biology based management plans.

    PEW GRANT APPLICATION - THE STRATEGIC ATTACK PLAN

  • 8/3/2019 Power to Hurt

    18/30Power to Hurt 18

    Structurally, the Southwest is in an excellent position to attain this goal.

    An informal network of all the major forest activists already exists. We are remarkably unified in our vision andare well poised to organize a major campaign. In the last few years we have worked together on numerouslawsuits, petitions, and appeals. Most recently, we worked to together to produce a comprehensive critique ofthe Kaibab National Forests proposed Forest Plan amendment.

    Because clearcutting has not been the predominant method of logging. Southwest forests have not been con-verted to tree farms. Significant, unprotected roadless areas and mature forest still exists.

    Because Southwest forests are so diverse and support so many endemic species, they are uniquely suited to abiodiversity based forest campaign.

    The Southwest is unique in that virtually all its water originates on National Forest land. Clean, abundant water isfar and away the most valuable resource in this arid region and is in direct conflict with excessive logging.

    Ninety percent of Southwest forests are managed by the U S Park or Forest Service. The rest is managed bythree Native American Nations. With so few agencies involved, all with federal environmental mandates,strategizing and coordination will be made easier.

    The timber industry is a minor economic force in the Southwest. Its continued and inevitable decline will notcause the kind of upheavals evident in the Northwest.

    Tourism is the Southwests largest industry. Arizona is the most popular destination birding area in the country.Permanently protecting our forests will increase and diversify the regions economy.

    The Southwest is one of the most urbanized regions in the Country. Seventy-five percent of its population livesin Albuquerque, Tucson or Phoenix. The other twenty-five percent is largely concentrated in a handful ofsmaller cities. This population is recreationally oriented and can be reached very efficiently.

    Native American and traditional Hispanic cultures continue to thrive and are recognized as integral parts South-western culture. These communities and the values they represent are dependent upon healthy forest ecosys-tems.

    Temporarily, a systematic forest campaign must come together and make significant achievements in the next fiveyears. A short window of opportunity is currently present. Researchers in the last decade have produced a host ofscientific studies documenting the decline of biodiversity and ecological integrity in Southwestern forests. Thecurrent democratic Presidency and Congress offers a unique and possibly limited opportunity for legislative reform.The appointment of biologist, Jack Ward Thomas, as Forest Service Chief increases thc chances of positive, pro-active administrative relief.

    The last Southwest Regional Forester retired after the environmental community unanimously called for his resigna-tion. He was recently replaced by Charles Cartwright, assistant head of Ecosystem Management for the ForestService. Cartwrights background and interests may make him more open to true ecosystem management. Having asupportive Regional Forester is a significant opportunity.

    As required by the National Forest Management Act, all eleven National Forests will revise their Forest Plans inthe next five years which will guide Forest management for the next decade. Forest planning offers an excellentopportunity for environmentalists to formulate independent, science based Forest Plan proposals and promotecomprehensive regional planning. Regional Forest Plan amendments to include Mexican spotted owl and Northerngoshawk management plans will offer the first opportunity for citizen review and challenge of the Southwestsguiding conservation plans. A successful challenge to the plans would entirely change forestry in the Southwest.

    Finally, other regions such as the Southern Appalachians and Northern Rockies are currently organizing or proposingsimilar campaigns. These efforts will lend credibility to one another, creating a favorable climate for systematicregional and national forest protection.

    PEW GRANT APPLICATION - THE STRATEGIC ATTACK PLAN

  • 8/3/2019 Power to Hurt

    19/3019 Power to Hurt

    II. THE DESERT FORESTS CAMPAIGN

    Campaign Strategy

    Forest Proposals

    Ecologically based forest management proposals will be developed for each ecosystem including every NationalForest and Native American Nation which choose to participate. The proposals will form the core of the legisla-tive and Forest Plan proposals. They will also be used for multi-species conservation plans, public education andadministrative resistance.

    Forest proposals will include detailed maps, management prescriptions, and strategies to protect economic andcultural resources. Proposals will be tailored to the unique biological and cultural character of each ecosystem (seeTable 1). Diversity and local planning will be the keystone of the legislative and Forest Plan proposals.Maps will include ecological communities, habitat conditions, reserves, buffers, corridors, sustainable use zones,and critical watersheds and wildlife areas. Management prescriptions will be based on ecological communities,indicator species and endangered species. They will include detailed species viability assessments. Economicprotection strategies will include restoration initiatives such as stream enhancement, riparian recovery, and roadclosure, as well as sustainable use area to be managed for small scale mills and ranches. They will include detailed

    economic profile and impact analyses. Cultural protection strategies will preserve historic and sacred NativeAmerican sites and ensure traditional uses.

    Table 1. FOREST PROPOSAL ISSUES FOR SELECTED SOUTHWEST ECOSYSTEMS

    PEW GRANT APPLICATION - THE STRATEGIC ATTACK PLAN

    ECOSYSTEM/

    MANAGEMENT

    EMPHASIS

    BIOLOGICAL ISSUE

    Kaibab Plateau

    Biological/cultural reserve

    Extensive residual old

    highly fragmented cont

    Southwests source No

    goshawk population. Mspotted owl already ext

    Mogollon Plateau

    Restoration, water quality,

    recreation

    Little old growth or roa

    produces most of Arizo

    only corridor between s

    New Mexico and north

    Arizona/Utah

    Sky Island Ecosystem

    Biodiversity Conservation area

    Extreme diversity and

    many endangered speci

    reintroduction, surroun

    conservation areas

    Greater Gila Ecosystem

    Old growth, wilderness, wildlife

    Extensive roadless, wilold growth, densest Me

    spotted owl population,

    jaguar and condor reint

    endemic trout

    Southern Rockies

    Sustainable use

    Wilderness, roadless, r

    growth, native trout, co

    Southern Rockies

  • 8/3/2019 Power to Hurt

    20/30Power to Hurt 20

    Forest proposal development will be coordinated by Forest Conservation Council in conjunction with local grassrootsactivists, biodiversity activists and the scientific community. As the Sky Island and Northern New Mexico proposalsare largely developed, they will be completed first and serve as prototypes for the rest of the region.

    Congressman Bill Richardson of New Mexico has expressed great interest in the legislative proposal and will likelyintroduce our legislative package. He previously introduced and lobbied for the successful Jemez Mountains Na-tional Recreation Area which eliminated pumice mining in Northern New Mexico.

    Biodiversity Advocacy

    National Forest Management Act and Endangered Species Act petitions, appeal and litigation have provided theenvironmental movement its strongest tools. They have been used less than strategically, however, when focused onsingle species. Activists in the Southwest have petitioned for 32 endangered species and have thus far been verysuccessful in strategically using these laws to obtain permanent ecosystem protection, create administrative legaltools, and create acute pressure points in need of immediate conservation resolution. They have used the laws pro-actively to administratively petition for million acres of critical habitat, including 16 entire watersheds, for the endan-gered Gila Trout.

    Because of its extreme diversity and endemism, the Southwest is particularly well suited to biodiversity activism.More forest species are listed as endangered in the Southwest than any other region. More than a dozen speciesneed to added to the list including Goodings onion, Hesss fleabane, Blumers dock, Arizona water shrew, ChuskaMountains tassel eared squirrel, Obscura Mountains least chipmunk, spotted bat, occult bat, Apache goshawk,Northern goshawk, western yellow-billed cuckoo, Rio Grande cutthroat trout, and Chiricahua leopard frog.

    Listed species will be used in strategic multi-species litigation and administrative appeals to protect critical foreststands and watersheds. Unlisted species will subjects of Endangered Species Act petitions. Multi-species, ecosys-tem based recovery plans and critical habitat petitions will be developed and incorporated as integral parts of theforest plan proposals.

    Formatted species summaries will be used by activists around the region for use in administrative appeals. Whitepapers documenting the biodiversity crisis in the Southwest will be developed for widespread use in public education

    media, litigation, and appeals. White paper topics will include Impact of Cattle Grazing and Logging on NativeSouthwest Trout, The Neotropical Songbird Crisis in Southwestern Forests, Decline of Native Southwest Amphib-ians, Status of Old Growth Forests in the Southwest, Impacts of Cattle Grazing on Southwestern Forests, andMistletoe, Bark Beetles, Fire Suppression and the Forest Health Crisis.

    A Scientific Panel will be convened and jointly funded by the Campaign and the Forest Service to assess currentforest conditions and biodiversity needs. Such panels have been highly successful in the Pacific Northwest andAlaska. They are currently being pursued in the Sierra Nevada and the Southern Appalachians. In addition, theCampaign will work closely with biologists and ecologists from state and tribal agencies to develop working relation-ships that can add credibility to our Biodiversity Advocacy component in the media and influencing public opinion.

    A Biodiversity Initiative petition will be filed with the Forest Service Chief in Washington, D.C. in order to drawattention to the biodiversity management crisis in the Southwest. It will seek administrative review and be used as amedia and public education tool.

    Finally, the Biodiversity component will include extensive work with grassroots coordinators and grassroots activiststo implement an aggressive administrative resistance program. In the Southwest, the Forest Service and the Bureauof Indian Affairs are currently proposing logging, roadbuilding, mining, water developments and recreational facilitiesin biologically critical roadless, old growth and wilderness areas. The Forest Service is also dramatically increasingsalvage and forest health timber sales throughout the region. These projects continue to degrade Southwest forestecosystems and jeopardize the integrity of the forest reserve proposals. Within the Biodiversity component, theCampaign will monitor, comment on and appeal projects throughout the region which threaten Forest ecosystemintegrity.

    PEW GRANT APPLICATION - THE STRATEGIC ATTACK PLAN

  • 8/3/2019 Power to Hurt

    21/3021 Power to Hurt

    Appeals will be filed in coordination with and on behalf of local grassroots groups. In the event that local groupschoose to file their own appeals, the Campaign will provide biological, silvicultural and legal support.

    The Campaign will also work to assure appropriate budget allocations for the Southwest Region of the ForestService. Misdirected appropriations ensure misplaced emphasis on resource extraction, while making restorationvirtually impossible.

    The Biodiversity component of the Campaign will be coordinated by the Greater Gila Biodiversity Project, theSouthwest Center for Biological Diversity and Earthlaw.

    Urban Mobilization and Media/Public Education

    Because the Southwest populace is largely concentrated in less than a dozen urban centers, with 75% in Phoenix,Tucson and Albuquerque, it can be efficiently reached by a directed urban mobilization campaign, Mobilizing publicsupport will be crucial to effectively reach the legislature and create widespread interest in forest reform.

    In year one we will conduct strategic planning sessions with professional consultants to develop a compellingmessage best suited to the unique geographical and cultural conditions of the Southwest. We anticipate the firstyears design work to include:

    1. - An analysis of strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats (SWOT), to determine (a) what successful/unsuccessful media messages Southwest forest activists have utilized; (b) how well we are packaging the meaningof our activism; (c) what our strengths and weaknesses as a movement are, (d) what resources are available withinour coalition; (e) what resources need to be brought in from outside.

    2. Polling and/or focus groups to gauge current public sentiment and knowledge, determine how well our messagehas gotten across, how well the industry and. The anti-environmental movements message has gotten across, andassess how much desert-dwelling urbanites know about Southwest forests and their plight; development of acompelling vision and a messages targeted at specific audiences at specific times.

    3. Design of an outreach program capable of transmitting and selling the vision and messages.

    4. A public relations professional in Phoenix has agreed to work pro-bono to develop an initial vision, message and

    communications plan.

    We expect to begin the outreach education campaign in earnest by year two. An urban canvass will begin operatingin year two as part of the outreach program. New Mexico PIRG has expressed interest in contracting canvasswork in New Mexico.

    Grassroots Support Network

    Developing an effective grassroots network is critical. Grassroots activists will be instrumental in developing andlobbying for local forest proposals. They will also file administrative appeals and provide on the ground knowledgeto all facets of the campaign.

    Grassroots activists will be teched-up and tied into an electronic network which includes computers, faxes, modems,a Desert Forest Conference on Econet, and a regular newsletter. Good communication among activists is necessaryto develop consistent positions, quick, effective response, and timely, accurate information flow.

    Media, mapping, forestry and appeals workshops will be regularly organized in each of the three eco-regions tocreate activist groups where they are needed to support existing activists. A forestry specialist will also be availableto aid in on ground analysis.

    Two grassroots activists will be hired to organize Northern New Mexico, Northern Arizona, and the Southernforests. The Sierra Club Plateau Group, which has experience organizing forest watch groups on the MogollonPlateau will help develop the grassroots campaign.

    PEW GRANT APPLICATION - THE STRATEGIC ATTACK PLAN

  • 8/3/2019 Power to Hurt

    22/30Power to Hurt 22

    III. CAMPAIGN STRUCTURE

    The Desert Forests Campaign is being organized by Arizona Audubon Council, Carson Forest Watch, Earthlaw,Forest Conservation Council, Forest Guardians, Forest Trust, Greater Gila Biodiversity Project, Maricopa Audubon,Sierra Club Plateau Group, Southwest Center for Biological Diversity, and Southwest Audubon. National AudubonSociety will act as the Campaigns fiscal sponsor.

    The Campaign be overseen by an 11 member board representing the Campaign organizers. The Board will beresponsible for setting overall campaign goals and priorities, fiscal oversight, hiring staff, awarding grants, electing aSteering Committee and establishing a scientific review panel.

    An Advisory Board representing groups or individuals knowledgeable about and committed to protecting Southwestforest biodiversity will be established. The Advisory Board will provide input and advise to the Board from a varietyof academic and activist orientations.

    A Steering Committee of 5 people will act on behalf of the Board. The Steering Committee will ensure Campaigngoals, strategies, and programs are implemented. They will also be responsible for fund raising,

    A full time Campaign Administrator will manage campaign finances, inter-organization communication, coordinatefundraising, and act as a liaison between various program Elements. The Campaign Administrator will serve as the

    primary contact person for the media, foundations, agencies, and politicians. The Administrator will be supportedwith one half time staffer.

    Forest Conservation Council will coordinate forest proposals with the aid of local activists. Staff requirementsinclude 2.5 FTE and two consultants. The Southwest Center for Biological Diversity / Greater Gila BiodiversityProject will coordinate listing petitions, status reviews, conservation plans, and white papers. Staff requirementsinclude 2.5 FTE and two consultants. Three full-time coordinators will manage the grassroots support network andadministrative resistance components. Additional support will be allocated at the discretion of the Board of Direc-tors.

    IV. PROJECT BUDGET AND REQUEST TO PEW CHARITABLE TRUSTS

    The Desert Forest Campaign seeks $225,000 per year for two years from the Pew Charitable Trusts to implement

    The Desert- Forest Campaign in Arizona and New Mexico. The Campaign is a three year, $1,514,100 commitmentby a network of grassroots and national environmental organizations. National Audubon Society will serve as thefiscal sponsor for the Campaign, with participating organizations receiving contracts from NAS to implement spe-cific Campaign components. The following budget narrative provides an explanation of revenues and expendituresdepicted on the budget form attached, and discussed year by year changes in the allocation of project funds as theyare adjusted to meet the changing emphasis of the campaign as it evolves over a three year period.

    Revenue

    In year one, total project revenue is expected to be $496,545 with Pew Charitable Trusts contributing $225,000, or45% of the total. Other foundations will contribute $226,145. Existing commitments to individual groups implement-ing portions of the Campaign include the Turner Foundatiom, for biodiversity advocacy, grassroots mapping, litigationand appeals ($50,000), the Harder Foundation for appeals and public education work ($10.000), the Sierra Club($2,000) for mapping, the McCune Foundation ($15,000) for economic and cultural resource effects analysis ofConservation Plans, and the Ruth Brown Foundation ($5,000) for biodiversity advocacy. Other foundations beingsolicited by participating organizations for Campaign related work include the W. Alton Jones Foundation, the RuthMott Fund, Recreation Equipment Incorporated, the Santa Fe Community Foundation, the Surdna Foundation, the CS Fund, Foundation for Deep Ecology, [Temson(?)] Foundation and Fund for Wild Nature, the Rockefeller Founda-tion, the Florence Schumann Foundation, the Nathan Cummings Foundation and the Tides Foundation.

    Additional revenues are expected from business sponsors ($10,000), including the Business for Social Responsibilitynetwork in New Mexico, from individual members of Participating organizations ($15,000), and direct funding ofcampaign costs and labor from participating organizations ($20,400); [END OF AVAILABLE DOCUMENT]

    PEW GRANT APPLICATION - THE STRATEGIC ATTACK PLAN

  • 8/3/2019 Power to Hurt

    23/3023 Power to Hurt

    TARGETS OF HURT: COMMENTS FROM AROUND THE NATIONBob Voight, Maine

    The environmentalists used the spotted owl to control the forest in the Northwest. Since 1988 the environ-mentalists have tried ruse after ruse to control the 16 million acres of forest in Maine. They all failed. Now they areusing the salmon, under the Endangered Species Act, to attain forest control. The U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service andthe National Marine Fisheries Service are their weapons of choice to fulfill the Endangered Species Act listing, andthus control the entire watershed, most of the forest of Maine. Over the next decade fishing, fish farming and theforest industry will be shut down, with no recourse, no citizen choice. The major opponent of the Maine forest

    economy is the Northern Forest Alliance, a coalition of 34 state and national environmentalist groups with a budgetof $100 million, much of which comes from the John Merck Fund, Pew Charitable Trusts and Jessie B. Cox Chari-table Trust. The juggernaut of extreme environmentalism rolls on, squashing citizens beneath its weight.

    Ted Miller, Pulp and Paperworkers Resource Council, Gorham, New HampshireFor the past one hundred years, Berlin and Gorham, NH have depended on their pulp and paper mills.

    Indeed, it has been shown that 70% of all jobs in Coos County (northern New Hampshire) depend on those mills.In 1992 the local pulp and paper industry was in a deep recession. As a non-salaried worker in those mills I

    can testify they were in need of major investment in equipment upgrades and routine maintenance.The hydro dams owned by the mill provide over 60% of their own power. The licenses to operate those

    dams on the Androscoggin River came up for renewal by FERC.Without warning, an environmental coalition calling itself the Conservation Coalition emerged, consisting of

    the Appalachian Mountain Club, the Conservation Law Foundation, Trout Unlimited, American Rivers Inc., and

    American Whitewater Affiliation. They filed for intervention on the dam relicensing. Backed by a $250,000 yearlygrant from Pew Charitable Trusts over the next three years, this coalition cost the Berlin-Gorham mills millions ofdollars at a time they truly could not afford it.

    The Coalition demanded that the mill owners provide a buffer within 4000 feet of the shoreline, increasedwater flows over the existing dams resulting in less power generation, serious restrictions on use of the entirewatershed, and a supplemental EIS.

    It took three years for FERC to relicense the hydro dams. The Conservation Coalition had cost James RiverCorp. millions of dollars. Over three hundred jobs were lost. The Berlin-Gorham mills were more dilapidated. Fundsbadly needed for equipment upgrades were diverted to legal wrangling.

    Environmental groups backed by foundations continue to injure the people of northern New Hampshire.

    Erich Veyhl, MassachusettsDestruction of dams and the beginning of using Atlantic Salmon as a surrogate endangered species for

    Federal control of the watershed: The environmentalists have been harassing several dam operations in order todestabilize private industry in Maine, forcing them to sell their assets. They cost Bowater millions in the fight torelicense the Great Northern Paper Co. dams. They succeeded recently in forcing the Edwards dam to be demol-ished over the objections of its owner and have been openly harassing an existing dam operation at Basin Mills. TheFederal government, with environmentalist pressure, is now threatening an Atlantic Salmon ESA listing.

    The American Rivers Conservation Council, Inc. Washington, DC: $20,000 Support towards a collaborativeproject of American Rivers, Natural Resources Council of Maine, and the Atlantic Salmon Federation to remove theEdwards Dam on the Kennebec River in Maine.

    Sierra Club Legal Defense Fund $25,000: To support legal costs of challenging the proposed Basin MillsDam project on the Penobscot River.

    A straightforward attempt to influence judges throughout New England: Massachusetts Bar Foundation /Flaschner Judicial Institute Boston, MA: $46,500 To support a collaborative project of the MassachusettsExecutive Office of Environmental Affairs, Environmental Law Institute, and Flaschner to develop andpresent an environmental program for judges throughout New England.

    Brian Bishop, Rhode IslandResidents of upstate New York and northern New England are threatened with emotional and financial

    ruin. I have literally seen foundation driven ideas bleed these communities dry.The Appalachian Mountain Club has become a virtual clearing house for attacks on northern forest citizens,

    with the group receiving numerous grants on its own and in combination with other organizations which are aimed atundermining the forest economy and limiting development opportunity. The AMC in concert with Maine Audubon,Audubon Society of NH, and the Conservation Law Foundation received a three year grant of $315,000 from theJesse B. Cox Charitable Trust to prioritize high value natural lands in the north woods of New England, and topromote a greenline strategy for the northern forests.

  • 8/3/2019 Power to Hurt

    24/30Power to Hurt 24

    TARGETS OF HURT: COMMENTS FROM AROUND THE NATIONThis is funding for a direct assault on the citizens of the northern forest and their way of life. To make

    matters worse, these grants have been leveraged with the free use of federal land in the White Mountain NationalForest in a most inappropriate collusion between the US Forest Service and the Appalachian Mountain Club whichconducts lobbying and direct action activities from a hiking facility on the White Mountain National Forest. Memosindicate that the Forest Service and the AMC conduct business as a virtual partnership in which the Forest Serviceprovides facilities to the AMC which in turn lobbies the federal government which the Forest Service is unable to do.Thus, in directing the AMC, the Jesse B. Cox Charitable Trust gains the additional ability to give virtually the same

    direction to the Forest Service.The residents of the northern forest states are open to dialogue within their communities with the intent ofproviding for a sustainable future in the north country, but they are set upon by outside influences, i.e. undue influ-ences, seeking to do for the northeast what they have already done to the northwest. If this is acceptable to Con-gress, I am ashamed to be a citizen of this country.

    Matt Bennett, TennesseeMatt Bennett, TennesseeMatt Bennett, TennesseeMatt Bennett, TennesseeMatt Bennett, TennesseeIn early 1995, ten local, regional, and national environmental organizations banded together to form the

    Southern Appalachian Forest Coalition (SAFC). Located in Asheville, North Carolina, SAFC is an umbrella groupcreated to execute a unified political and media strategy to influence the management of the regions five millionacres of public land. According to an article published in the Asheville Citizen-Times, the groups agenda includedstopping clearcutting, protecting road-less areas and old-growth forests, and protecting wildlife and stream corridors.The article also mentioned that SAFC was not a membership organization and that funding would come entirely

    from foundation grants. SAFC owed more than just its funding to foundations. Its very creation was the result of ameeting sponsored by the Pew Charitable Trusts that suggested environmental groups could be more effective ifthey formed coalitions to lead and coordinate their efforts.

    Using a coalition member, the Southern Environmental Law Center, as its fiscal agent, SAFCs annualbudget now approaches $1 million. Their Form 990 lists grants from, among others, The Lyndhurst Foundation, PewCharitable Trusts, Turner Foundation, W. Alton Jones Foundation, and the Merck Family Fund. These impressiveresources and the ability to hire a sizeable full-time staff give SAFC a disproportionate influence in the NationalForest planning process. Other forest users are often precluded from participating in the planning meetings due tojob related responsibilities. The results are obvious; largely due to their influence, timber production is no longerincluded as a multiple-use outcome in the preferred alternative of the Region 8 National Forest Management Plans.

    Foundation support has changed the rules of the game in the forest planning process. Public participation isskewed when a cadre of full-time activists, who do little else, is pitted against citizens who must earn a living andraise a family during the time when meetings are typically held. Sadly, from the standpoint of democratic participa-

    tion, this domination will be further exaggerated by the Forest Services proposed new planning rule with its empha-sis on collaborative decision making. Too often those sitting at the table will be the ones that are paid to be there,the rest of the public having been excluded by the necessity of earning a living elsewhere.

    Jan Michael Jacobson, Florida.I have been Director of the Everglades Institute for the last twenty years. Prior to that I was, among other

    things, chairman of a Sierra Club chapter and thus a member of the Florida Sierra Clubs Florida Executive Commit-tee (FLEXCOM).

    It is my considered opinion that Mr. Arnold is both factually correct and politically astute in his analysis ofthe relationships between environmental groups and government agencies.

    Indeed, I left FLEXCOM over an abuse regrettably all too similar to those documented by Mr. Arnold.These abuses were easily predictable from a Constitutional perspective, being what the Founders knew would occurif power was not balanced and checked.

    We in the environmental movement organizations, and the officers in particular, departed from historicallytested, and proven, American control of power; we allowed vast sums to be controlled by a handful of people. Weassumed that they were good people. At the beginning (say, early 1960s) many were.

    But money and power do predictable things to even the best of us, as Lord Acton observed so long ago.It is my opinion, based on my experience and research, that unaccountable power is perhaps even more

    likely to corrupt than absolute power.And the environmental movement is not accountable to anyone, in large part not even its members.

    Julie Smithson, Ohio:Our area is under threat of being declared a National Wildlife Refuge by the actions of corrupt officials of

    the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, acting in collusion with The Nature Conservancy, which is attempting to impose

  • 8/3/2019 Power to Hurt

    25/30

  • 8/3/2019 Power to Hurt

    26/30Power to Hurt 26

    TARGETS OF HURT: COMMENTS FROM AROUND THE NATIONthe area was developed in 1995. Land owners had been asked to submit a copy of their individual allotments to theAnimas Foundation. Many cooperated. The maps were then compiled into one large map that became known as theMalpai Borderlands area. Next, the Forest Service began to pressure individuals to allow naturally occurring fires toburn their allotments. The Forest Service also began to develop a fire plan for the area that included naturallyoccurring, and prescribed fires. They recommended individuals grassbank on the Gray Ranch to reduce thecosts associated with these fires. This was not acceptable to many because it involved placing a conservationeasement on their property to be held by the Malpai Group.

    In addition to the prescribed fires, the residents were strongly encouraged to; 1) preserve open space bylimiting subdivision on their private property; 2) adopt Chihuahua leopard frogs to be placed in their dirt tanks; 3)develop a Conservation Agreement with Assurances for prairie dogs, which the Animas Foundation relocated to theGray Ranch over the objections of the county; and 4) offer protection for jaguars that never inhabited the area. Mostrecently, they have had their allotments mapped by US Fish and Wildlife for occupied habitat, and the wholeHidalgo County designated occupied range for jaguar. Simultaneously, the New Mexico Wilderness Coalition,headed by Dave Foreman, former Earth First leader, is pushing for the area to be designated a wilderness.

    Preserving open space, as perpetuated by the Malpai Borderlands Group and TNC, has the potential tocreate the greatest economic harm to the county and its residents. Already one of the poorest counties in the state ofNew Mexico, the closing of Phelps Dodges Hidalgo Smelter, has left little tax base on which to operate. Furtherrestricting development will be the death knell. It is evident the Malpai Group is being positioned to become recipientsof any mitigation fees extorted from local businesses and residents that do decide to develop their private property.Presently this county has one of the highest occurrences of endangered and special status species in the state, as

    identified by TNC. These species can easily be used to leverage their buyout of the area.Funding for the Animas Foundation and the Malpai Borderlands Group has come from grants given byfederal agencies, chiefly the Forest Service which funds a position to administer the Malpai Borderlands agenda, andthe National Resources Conservation Service, which also funds a position for the Malpai Group. Large foundationdonations have been made by: Liz Claiborne - Art Ortenberg Foundation, Clark Family Foundation, Doris DukeFoundation, General Motors, Hewlett Foundation, JR Short Milling Co, Mildred Andrews Fund, McCune Foundation,Moriah Fund, Nadalynn Conway Trust, National Fish and Wildlife Foundation, Norcross Wildlife Foundation, OrvisCompany, Orvis-Perkins Foundation, Perkins Charitable Foundation, Point Foundation, Thaw Charitable Trust, TidesFoundation, Wallace Research Foundation, and Wolf Creek Foundation.

    We respectfully request Congress fully investigate these foundation grants and federal agency involvement inthis clear attempt to destroy our countys economy.

    Rachel Thomas, Arizona

    From December 8, 1995 The Nature Conservancy (TNC) notified the Bureau of Reclamation (BOR) of theirinterest in accepting and managing a fund established for the purpose of mitigating endangered species impacts atRoosevelt Lake, Arizona. On March 18, 1996 a federal grant was given to TNC for $25,000. May 24, 1996: theamount was increased by $25,000 to file an option to purchase Saddle Mountain Lakes, a commercial fish farm andranch operation. August 19, 1996: a draft grant was transmitted to TNC which was the agreement between BOR andTNC for $4,198,804.00 with $1,747,426.00 federal funds obligated by Jennis L. Hemingway, BOR. September 18,1996: the total amount for the mitigation activities was increased by Hemingway to $4,422,804. November 15, 1996: afully executed copy of the grant was transmitted from BOR to TNC. November 22, 1996: a request by TNC forfunds to purchase a nut harvester ($6,000) and a Massey-Ferguson 650 Tractor ($7,500). December 3, 1996: ap-proval for purchase of equipment by BOR.

    Mike Noel, UtahMichael Noel is a retired 25 year federal employee. Mike worked in the Kanab Bureau of Land Management

    (BLM) office in Southern Utah for 22 years. During that period he received numerous special achievement awardsand quality step pay increase awards for outstanding performance in his job. Mike never received any yearly evalua-tion rating below a superior. He was a good worker and was well respected by many different supervisors and by thecitizens in the community in which he worked and lived. During the last 6 years of his employment with the BLMMike was assigned as the project manager for the preparation of the Environmental Impact Statement for theAndalex Coal Mine Proposal know as the Warm Springs EIS. There were a total of 3 federal agencies BLM, Officeof Surface Mining, US Park Service, 1 Utah State Agency, the division of Oil Gas and Mining and a private, govern-ment selected, consultant, ENSR in Boulder Colorado that provided input, review and consultation on the EIS.

    After 5 years of work on the EIS and several months prior to the intended release of the Draft EIS to thepublic, the document was sent to the Washington Office for review. During this time the EIS was reviewed at the

  • 8/3/2019 Power to Hurt

    27/3027 Power to Hurt

    TARGETS OF HURT: COMMENTS FROM AROUND THE NATION

    highest levels of the Interior Department and because the impacts of the proposed action on the federal lands werefound to be minor to moderate and completely mitigatable, Noel and his project manager joint lead counterpart withthe OSM, Floyd McMullen, were subjected to intense scrutiny and pressure to change the impacts identified in theEIS.

    Despite the preparation and review by over 100 federal, state, and private resource specialists, thesepolitically appointed Washington Office Interior Department managers were unhappy with the document. Noel andMcMullen held firm to the findings in their document and were not willing to make changes based merely on the

    fact that the green bureaucracy in Washington wanted the project stopped. During this review process with Wash-ington Office, Noel was in fact demoted from project manager to assistant project manager and his duties wereseverely restricted.

    In September of 1996 the Grand Staircase Escalante National Monument was created with the statementby Bill Clinton that the area must be protected from coal development. This is of course was a lie and was only ameans for the administration to invoke the Antiquities Act to create the monument.

    After the creation of the monument, Noel became persona non grata in the BLM and was told that he wasto be reduced from a GS 12 to a GS 11 grade. The normal occurrence would have been to give Noel a promotionand an award for completing the complex and highly controversial EIS that would have been legally defensible in acourt of law.

    Noel opted for an early out with a 20% reduction in retirement benefits and went to work as the executivedirector for the Kane County Water Conservancy District. Last year he organized the Color Country Chapter of

    People for the USA in Kanab and another Chapter in neighboring Garfield County. Noel and over 1000 members ofPFUSA in Kane County are working with local and state government elected representatives and citizens to try andoverturn the monument designation through the judical process. He is also fighting water rights issues and theRS2477 road battle with the BLM to keep them from closing over 1279 miles of county roads in the new monu-ment.

    Mr. Noels experience is not a isolated one. Many former BLM employees including Mr. Jim Parker,former BLM state director for Utah and Ed Sherick, former Monticello Utah Area Manager are also activelyinvolved in helping the rural counties in Utah protect their rights against the green agenda of the Clinton Goreadministration. After reading Ron Arnolds book Undue Influence, Mike contacted him to thank him for his presen-tation of the real facts concerning the creation of the GSENM

    Shauna Johnson, UtahThree years ago, a diverse group of County residents and agencies formed a committee to develop a plan to

    protect the floodplain of the Virgin River with a locally-driven plan that would protect private property rights, theeconomy of the region, and the sensitive and endangered species of fish that USFWS had identified in the river. Weworked for three years, in close cooperation with USFWS, BLM, Park Service, State of Utah, to develop a planthat would satisfy USFWS requirements. The Grand Canyon Trust were invited to be part of the process, and didparticipate, and in October of 1999, our plan was approved and signed off on by all participants, and published andpublicly implemented. This plan was supposed to alleviate the need for Critical habitat designation for the VirginRiver floodplain which is 85% private property and the main source of water for our whole area.

    During the entire process, the GRAND CANYON TRUST, funded by grants from THE GENERALSERVICE FOUNDATION-$10,000/yr.; the PINCUS FAMILY FUND-$30,000/yr.; GEORGE S. and DOLORESDORE ECCLES FOUNDATION-$37,500/yr.; the FORD FOUNDATION-$200,000/yr.; the J.S. and JESSIE E.QUINNEY FOUNDATION-$37,000/yr.; attempted to usurp and undermine our efforts, even as they were sup-posed to be working on the planning team. They tried to start a separate committee, tried to bring in their own fishbiologists to refute the science behind the plan, and applied for a large grant, stating that the Virgin River Planning

    committee was supporting them. Their overt behavior throughout the whole process caused the plan to take a lotlonger than it should have, but in the end, they signed off on it as did the USFWS. Within 2 weeks of the implemen-tation of our Plan, the USFWS listed our river as Critical habitat , despite the fact that they had